View single post by Bama46
 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2007 04:31 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Bama46
$user_title
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David,

The fallacy in your argument (IMO) is that of historical accuracy. I do not believe the feds engaged in trade agreements during that time. Trade agreements are a relative recent event. In the past, the feds collected tarrifs and pretty much stayed out of international commerce.

Look at the issue of Nullification. John C. Calhoun and SC postulated that the states had the right to nullify federal laws that were contrary to the interests of the states. Principally the issue was tarrifs. This occured during the Jackson Adminsitration and caused a constitutional crisis and Jackson threatened military action.

Regarding the ownership of Ft. Sumpter, that also is subject to debate. As the states seceeded, federal installations all over the south were abandoned or turned over to the states. Ft Sumpter and a fort in Florida (name escapes me) were not. It could be and is sone circles is, argued that as SC had left the union and Ft Sumpter is clearly inside Charleston Harbor, the continued presence of federal troops there constituted an act of war. We do know that Lincoln clearly manipulated this situation to provoke the south into war.

 Close Window